Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I've seen this before.

Again it is willfully obfuscating the critically of the 'adjustments' as (in the most entertaining point in that video) Senator Cruze puts it in lieu of painting his argument in a more positive light.

When looking at climate, one must take into account a set of averages rather than cherry picked datapoints, for example:

Climate Scientists say the temperature is warming, but Senator Cruze says that the measured temperature in Wyoming has remained relatively unchanged for the last 150 years, ergo the climate is not in fact warming. What Senator Cruze (either willfully or ignorantly) posits is that Wyoming is a perfect analogue for the planet (which it is not), and that the 'adjustments' made my climatologists are some conspiracy to empower the government to steal peoples money under the guise of fighting climate change. This is incorrect, as climatologists from all areas of employment, both privately and publicly agree on the aggregate that temperatures are rising. They are not benefiting from an agenda of monetary gain, but rather are pushing the message as one predicated on preservation of humanities current way of life.

imgur.com...

giant.gfycat.com...

As I mentioned previously, the data is being averaged for the sake of holistic accuracy, and the manner of which it is being averaged is freely available to scrutiny (as is the case in any good science). The only folks who are claiming its bunk are either politicians using the point for political gain or those supported by the same political machinations (either through funding or their own ingrained ideology).

I have trouble reconciling the fact that the weather fluctuations this year and last (having set ultimate all time high/low records) isn't an obvious indicator that the climate is shifting out of the aforementioned homeostatic balance.

a reply to: Wayfarer

You criticise a person for using one state as an example and then say this:

I have trouble reconciling the fact that the weather fluctuations this year and last (having set ultimate all time high/low records) isn't an obvious indicator that the climate is shifting out of the aforementioned homeostatic balance.

Blimey - thanks for the solid science.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Climate is the prevailing conditions in a region . Weather is a transitory situation that changes daily even hourly.
Climate is the constant overall conditions. Like a desert or a mountain range or a rain Forrest or the frozen tundra.
The changes taking place in these prevailing conditions have broader consequences as they change conditions in other systems all around them.

a reply to: UKTruth

You can marvel all you like, but I would appreciate it if you stopped using the argument that global warming means the planet only gets hotter like its some kind of axiom. As I said previously, such a statement belies a lack of understanding of the complexity of climate effects.

Your point of climatologists getting the extent of the effects incorrect is valid in a minor sense, however climatology is also one of the least complete sciences (take weather prediction for example, wherein we can only accurately predict weather a couple of days out). This does not mean that our limited understanding doesn't deserve important action, and in this case to make the argument that because scientist claim something heinous is occurring and we should do something about it is merely a political ploy to enrich others is dangerously risky. It makes it sound like your opinion is we should wait and see what happens, and if you're wrong and a catastrophic cascade does begin occurring you will admit you were wrong, and we will all die (vs beginning ameliorative measures on the hopes that the climatologists are wrong but with the understanding that direct action can only help the situation if they are right).

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

You criticise a person for using one state as an example and then say this:

I have trouble reconciling the fact that the weather fluctuations this year and last (having set ultimate all time high/low records) isn't an obvious indicator that the climate is shifting out of the aforementioned homeostatic balance.

Blimey - thanks for the solid science.

I think you are having trouble reconciling 'one state' versus 'weather fluctuations setting all time high/low records'. My response that you quoted is representative of aggregate measurements.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Tell me. That 100 billion dollars that was supposed to be flowing into the Green Climate Fund every year by 2020, what good was it going to do?

a reply to: UKTruth

Brave words... from someone who lives on an island...

a reply to: Wayfarer

A minor point? Scientists making predictions for years that are wrong and you call that minor, lol. They have little clue as to what will happen to temperatures in the future, as evidenced by their ACTUAL predictions. I don't care if someone studies climate for 50 years and has degrees up their backside on the subject and 1,000's of published papers. If the result is their predictions are naff then they've wasted their time, and mine.

This is just history repeating itself. Here's a good one from the 70's:

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

You're a bunch of Nibiru doomsday merchants, trying to flog the next big thing and pretending there are concrete answers to things we simply do not have enough understanding of.

a reply to: UKTruth
Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation. Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.

No matter what happens to the weather, the climate explainers shamelessly cobble together an explanation which blames bad weather on your sinful lifestyle.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: UKTruth
Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation. Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.

I don't even say the global warming guru's don't have a point... they may, but I totally reject any person spouting off that the science is settled or that they have the answers. Those people are to be avoided like the plague.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
I have trouble reconciling the fact that the weather fluctuations this year and last (having set ultimate all time high/low records) isn't an obvious indicator that the climate is shifting out of the aforementioned homeostatic balance.

When you state that Wyoming is not a good representation for the planet, you're talking nonsense. You are basically, sitting in a car and the seat heater is on ... and you argue "Global Warming" from that standpoint. And Cruze, who is sitting besides you is telling you "nonsense", because his seat is cold.

You are, like people have been for thousands of years, before you. The climate has changed, it must be something we did ... that did it. We have "angered the gods", with our wicked ways.

Whome should we sacrifice, to "satisfy" the Gods and show we repend from our wicked ways? Should we sacrifice a Virgin? That will probably cause less carbon emission.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Brave words... from someone who lives on an island...

Yeah, not so much...here's another sage from years gone by:

In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” Of course, England still exists, and its population was doing much better in 2000 than when Ehrlich made his kooky claims. But long before 2000, Ehrlich had abandoned global-cooling alarmism in favor of warning that the Earth faced catastrophic global warming. Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
I have trouble reconciling the fact that the weather fluctuations this year and last (having set ultimate all time high/low records) isn't an obvious indicator that the climate is shifting out of the aforementioned homeostatic balance.

You are, like people have been for thousands of years, before you. The climate has changed, it must be something we did ... that did it. We have "angered the gods", with our wicked ways.

Whome should we sacrifice, to "satisfy" the Gods and show we repend from our wicked ways? Should we sacrifice a Virgin? That will probably cause less carbon emission.

Pretty accurate, I think, with the added wrinkle that now it's about money, the new God.

a reply to: bjarneorn

So if it was record-breaking warmth occurring, the Alarmists would of course be blaming Climate Change.
Now with near (or actual) record-breaking cold it is of course being blamed on Climate Change.

When a hypothesis explains all possible outcomes/observations, it is not science, it is pseudoscience.

Take home message:

– When a “hypothesis” explains all possible observations, then from a science standpoint, it explains nothing. It is worthless.
– From a broader, epistemological view, any hypothesis that explains everything is what we call a religion.

The only logical conclusion (based on climate “experts” own assertions):

Climate Change is a religion. A pagan religion to be more precise, but a religion in every sense none the less.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
I have trouble reconciling the fact that the weather fluctuations this year and last (having set ultimate all time high/low records) isn't an obvious indicator that the climate is shifting out of the aforementioned homeostatic balance.

When you state that Wyoming is not a good representation for the planet, you're talking nonsense. You are basically, sitting in a car and the seat heater is on ... and you argue "Global Warming" from that standpoint. And Cruze, who is sitting besides you is telling you "nonsense", because his seat is cold.

You are, like people have been for thousands of years, before you. The climate has changed, it must be something we did ... that did it. We have "angered the gods", with our wicked ways.

Whome should we sacrifice, to "satisfy" the Gods and show we repend from our wicked ways? Should we sacrifice a Virgin? That will probably cause less carbon emission.

I'm confused by this response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying looking at one datapoint is in fact a valid assessment of global climate change?

a reply to: Wayfarer

I'm confused by this response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying looking at one datapoint is in fact a valid assessment of global climate change?

I've been saying this for years, there is not enough historical data. There are very few data points in HUGE portions of the planet. Looks like Greenland, The arctic and the Antarctic have no data points. How do you get a global temperature out of that?

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

That image PROVES it!






People in the US are seriously obsessed with climate!!

a reply to: dfnj2015

What IF the "numbers" are tainted and biased?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Thanks for taking the time to explain it, and also for including the station coverage map, I appreciate it.

To answer your question regarding how can we utilize non-uniform datapoints: part of the process of 'adjustment' to the values is to take into account the distribution of datapoints and weight them accordingly so that the overall averaged data isn't skewed from a preponderance of data in one area and a lack of data in another.

Of course we can argue about the accuracy of those adjustments, but rest assured the aggregate data being claimed by climatologists is taking that fact into account.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: dfnj2015

What IF the "numbers" are tainted and biased?

But one of many examples explaining just how tainted and biased the numbers are...
appinsys.com...

Many parts of the world do not have data for the first half of the 20th century. Without this historical context it is easy to create misleading impressions. Much of Africa has this problem of a lack of historical context. The warming of 1 - 2 degrees since the base period is without historical perspective. This lack of history gives the false impression that the warming is significant.